His intractability became the reason for Vladimir Tsygank's dismissal from a position of the chief of the municipal enterprise "Avtotransobsluzhivaniye". It is possible to come to such conclusion after communication with the former chief of the municipal enterprise "Avtotransobsluzhivaniye".
According to Vladimir Tsygank, total checks at the enterprise began after he refused to sign the order with which to "Avtotransobsluzhivaniye" had to donate oblgosdaministration of 8 cars. Checking came from everywhere - from ОБЭПа, from prosecutor's office, from CREWE.
- This order was illegal. The regional state administration and so had a debt to the enterprise, and here also 8 cars would transfer to them, - Vladimir Tsyganok told the correspondent by phone.
For a year the director of KP "Avtotransobsluzhivaniye", tried to achieve return of 463 thousand hryvnias - such sum was run into debt by regional public administration to the enterprise for service. However in YEAH got off only with promises.
- I spoke about it for a year, and all the time to me answered: we "will solve". But further promises didn't reach, - Vladimir Tsyganok tells.
Through any time, having understood that the regional state administration of money isn't going to return, Vladimir Tsyganok asked for the help in collection of debt in law firm. Dismissal followed immediately. Vladimir Tsygank was called to himself by the deputy governor Dmitry Oboronko and reported that that is dismissed.
- It is possible to tell anything but when I came to the enterprise, it had a debt. For a moment my dismissal the enterprise had a profit in 71 thousand hryvnias. Besides, beforehand, till March gas was paid. The fuels and lubricants were beforehand paid also - the enterprise at the expense of these are combustible - lubricants till March carried a regional council, - Vladimir Tsyganok noted.
We will remind that Vladimir Tsyganok considers the dismissal illegal, and in this regard the claim filed a lawsuit against the Nikolaev regional state administration.In the statement of claim the claimant points to the numerous violations allowed YEAH both at his acceptance for work, and at dismissal.